Obama's Stance on Concealed Carry?

Good Luck said:
One is too common not to look at our society seriously to figure out what the hell is going on.
Click to expand...

I could not agree with you more.

Good Luck said:
But blaming it on access to guns is the lazy political way out. It does NOTHING to address WHY the shootings are taking place, and where the rubber meets the road, does practically nothing to prevent future events.
Click to expand...

In other words, I believe in your first statement more than you do. Why should guns or anything else be off the table if a society that recognizes our children need to be protected, and that kids being shot in school needs to be SERIOUSLY addressed? How serious an "addressing" can that be? Don't get it twisted .. this is not an attack on you, it's an attack on the illogic of thinking that all things don't need to be on the table when it comes to not only protecting our children, but protecting our society.

I hope we can have this discussion without the placebo of proclaiming guns are a "right" at the expense of discussing what is best for society.

Good Luck said:
The fact is school shooting were literally UNHEARD of during a time in our history when the types of weapons commonly used in school shootings were commonly available. Rifles such as the M1 carbine, the M1 Garand and M14 (fairly new in the 50s, but still had a civilian model) were widely in use as sporting rifles. Of the 3 the Garand was the only one which did not have high capacity magazines. The Colt m1911 .45 ACP could be had in pawn shops for cheap. But despite easy access to these weapons and others, gun crime rates were much lower than we see today, and practically miniscule compared to a decade or so ago.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here as well .. however, life and society are dynamic, not static .. and intelligent society evolves and adapts to changing dynamics, thus changing realities.

As you say, THAT society did not experience todays school violence, but THAT society also did not expose its children to 24/7 violence everyday of their lves. THIS society does.

Here's a illustration of how common they are in THIS society ...

April 2007: At least 32 people are killed in two shooting incidents in the campus of Virginia Tech university in Virginia.

October 2006: A 32-year-old gunman shoots dead at least five girls at an Amish school in Pennsylvania, before killing himself

September 2006: Gunman in Colorado shoots and fatally wounds a teenage schoolgirl, then kills himself; two days later a teenager kills the headteacher of a school in Cazenovia, Wisconsin

November 2005: Student in Tennessee shoots dead an assistant principal and wounds two other administrators

March 2005: Minnesota schoolboy kills nine, then shoots himself

May 2004: Four people injured in shooting at a school in Maryland

April 2003: Teenager shoots dead head-teacher at a Pennsylvania school, then kills himself

March 2001: Pupil opens fire at a school in California, killing two students

February 2000: Six-year-old girl shot dead by classmate in Michigan

November 1999: Thirteen-year-old girl shot dead by a classmate in New Mexico

May 1999: Student injures six pupils in shoot-out in Georgia

April 1999: Two teenagers shoot dead 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves at Columbine School in Colorado

June 1998: Two adults hurt in shooting by teenage student at high school in Virginia

May 1998: Fifteen-year-old boy shoots himself in the head after taking a girl hostage

May 1998: Fifteen-year-old shoots dead two students in school cafeteria in Oregon

April 1998: Fourteen-year-old shoots dead a teacher and wounds two students in Pennsylvania

March 1998: Two boys, 11 and 13, kill four girls and a teacher in Arkansas

December 1997: Fourteen-year-old boy kills three students in Kentucky

October 1997: Sixteen-year-old boy stabs mother, then shoots dead two students at school in Mississippi, injuring several others

Notice the ages of many of the shooters?

That doesn't include the many number of planned attacks that were stopped before they happened during the same time period.

Are you going to seriously suggest that access to guns played no part in these horrors? Is this about protecting American children or is this about the rights of past societies .. established at the same time one had a right to own a human?

Are the british coming? Not trying to be funny, but the society that established that "right" to own guns, supposedly of any magnitude, existed in a totally different reality that is not what America is today.

For clarity, if you can address this, I'll address your other questions.
 
Last edited:
"Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1996, this 2 year joint study led by the Centers for Disease Control, School-Associated Violent Deaths in the United States, 1992-94, found that the estimated incidence of school-associated violent death was 0.09 per 100,000 student- years.(13) In other words, the researchers found that there is less than one in a million chance of suffering a school associated violent death defined as both homicides and suicides. In contrast, according to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, there are 3.8 murdered juveniles per 100,000 juveniles within the US population - about 40 times the in-school death rate." (Sickmund, Melissa. Snyder, Howard N., and Poe-Yamagata, Eileen. (1997). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1997 Update on Violence. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1. NB: The 3.8 figure only includes homicides of juveniles, compared to the .09 figure which includes homicides and suicides.)

Kenneth Trump, president of Cleveland-based National School Safety and Security Services, has been tracking school-related deaths since the shooting at Columbine High School in 1999. According to this agency there have been 219 from the 1999-2000 school year to the 2006-2007 school year.

According to the US Dept of Education, there are 49.6 million students (elementary & secondary) in 97,000 public schools.

If all of the school deaths happened in this school year, it would represent less than 0.00045% of the students.

If you average out the shootings from the 1999 school year to the 2006 school year, it would be an average of less than 28 students per year. Or less than 0.000057% of students enrolled.

The media hype has made school shootings seem common, and yet they are still relatively rare. Certainly not common enough to warrant a restiction of the rights of the 60+ million firearm owners.
 
Blackascoal, you are correct that the framers of the US Constitution lived in a totally different reality than what is the USA today.

Home invasions by criminals were virtually unheard of in that time.

I doubt there were 5.6 murders per 100,000 population in that time.


Also, the framers of the US Constitution did not add the 2nd amendment sinply to defend against an armed invasion by a foreign nation. It was also to make sure the government did not become a dictatorship.
 
Solitary said:
Blackascoal, you are correct that the framers of the US Constitution lived in a totally different reality than what is the USA today.

Home invasions by criminals were virtually unheard of in that time.

I doubt there were 5.6 murders per 100,000 population in that time.

Also, the framers of the US Constitution did not add the 2nd amendment sinply to defend against an armed invasion by a foreign nation. It was also to make sure the government did not become a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

You cannot seriously be suggesting that US citizens are armed to protect themselves against the US government, or that having these guns would be in ANY way some impediment or protection against the government.

That cannot be a real argument my friend and I don't believe that you actually believe that.

A dog is better protection against home invasion than a gun, and it won't kill your spouse in an argument.

That rate of murders you speak of is not home owners protecting themselves against home invasion .. MOST of the victims are killed by people they know. Women are far more likely to be killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or family member than by a stranger.
 
Solitary said:
"Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1996, this 2 year joint study led by the Centers for Disease Control, School-Associated Violent Deaths in the United States, 1992-94, found that the estimated incidence of school-associated violent death was 0.09 per 100,000 student- years.(13) In other words, the researchers found that there is less than one in a million chance of suffering a school associated violent death defined as both homicides and suicides. In contrast, according to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, there are 3.8 murdered juveniles per 100,000 juveniles within the US population - about 40 times the in-school death rate." (Sickmund, Melissa. Snyder, Howard N., and Poe-Yamagata, Eileen. (1997). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1997 Update on Violence. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1. NB: The 3.8 figure only includes homicides of juveniles, compared to the .09 figure which includes homicides and suicides.)

Kenneth Trump, president of Cleveland-based National School Safety and Security Services, has been tracking school-related deaths since the shooting at Columbine High School in 1999. According to this agency there have been 219 from the 1999-2000 school year to the 2006-2007 school year.

According to the US Dept of Education, there are 49.6 million students (elementary & secondary) in 97,000 public schools.

If all of the school deaths happened in this school year, it would represent less than 0.00045% of the students.

If you average out the shootings from the 1999 school year to the 2006 school year, it would be an average of less than 28 students per year. Or less than 0.000057% of students enrolled.

The media hype has made school shootings seem common, and yet they are still relatively rare. Certainly not common enough to warrant a restiction of the rights of the 60+ million firearm owners.
Click to expand...

You can view these atrocities as "media hype" if you choose, or you can simpy ignore them, or you can make the argument that the "rights" of firearm owners are more important than dead children. It's analogous to the argument that only 4000+ American soldiers have been killed in Iraq when we sent hundreds of thousands. .. What's the big deal?

But none of those arguments make any sense to me and I no more choose to ignore dead children than I choose to ignore dead soldiers.
 
blackascoal said:
You can view these atrocities as "media hype" if you choose, or you can simpy ignore them, or you can make the argument that the "rights" of firearm owners are more important than dead children. It's analogous to the argument that only 4000+ American soldiers have been killed in Iraq when we sent hundreds of thousands. .. What's the big deal?

But none of those arguments make any sense to me and I no more choose to ignore dead children than I choose to ignore dead soldiers.
Click to expand...
Concentrating on legal gun ownership does nothing more for these dead children than does ignoring the situation.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, legal gun ownership - even by teenagers - has nothing to do with the rates of violent crime we see today. If there were a correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime rates, the 50s would have been a fucking war zone.

And your statement that defending 2nd amendment rights equates to believing those rights more important than children killed in school shootings is disingenuous at best. It is every bit as bad as saying if you don't support the president, your are for the terrorists.
 
You seem certain that the government, or even the military, would sweep aside an resistance by an armed population. And yet, in Iraq as in Vietnam, small numbers of poorly armed fighters kept the world's best military engaged.

When John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo went on their shooting spree, the media kept talking about their "apparent military sniper training". Yet their shooting was less accurate than most deer hunters. Hunters hide from wild animals and regularly take accurate long shots (relatively speaking). To say they would be totally ineffective against our military is to ignore the facts.


I do not choose to ignore dead children. I do not choose to ignore dead soldiers, dead housewives or dead policemen.

I was simply pointing out that the school shootings, despite the media hype, are rare events. I was pointing out that schools are still safer than our streets.

And I was pointing out that it is not a reason to amend the US Constitution.


As for dogs, the following facts come from the CDC:

- Every 40 second, someone in the United States seeks medical attention for a dog bite related injury.

- During 1979 - 1998, dog attacks killed more than 300 americans.

- 800,000 people sought medical care for dog bites; half of them were children under 18.



Should we ban private ownership of dogs as well?
 
Could we just admit that concealed carry isn't exactly the panacea its been chalked up to by the right?

Or that it just doesn't have much of an effect at all, really?
 
Watermark, I have not suggested that the CCW permits are a cure-all.

But the data I have seen seems to suggest they have a positive effect.

I have not seen evidence to suggest that restricting them has a positive effect. I have also not seen stricter gun laws in the US result in lower crime rates.

Also, its not about whether or not they are a panacea, its about the fact that a restriction of freedom cannot be tolerated without some serious benefits.
 
Good Luck said:
Concentrating on legal gun ownership does nothing more for these dead children than does ignoring the situation.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, legal gun ownership - even by teenagers - has nothing to do with the rates of violent crime we see today. If there were a correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime rates, the 50s would have been a fucking war zone.

And your statement that defending 2nd amendment rights equates to believing those rights more important than children killed in school shootings is disingenuous at best. It is every bit as bad as saying if you don't support the president, your are for the terrorists.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for you to address the arguments I made in my first post to you.

You continue to insist that everything doesn't have to be on the table.
 
blackascoal said:
You cannot seriously be suggesting that US citizens are armed to protect themselves against the US government, or that having these guns would be in ANY way some impediment or protection against the government.

That cannot be a real argument my friend and I don't believe that you actually believe that.

A dog is better protection against home invasion than a gun, and it won't kill your spouse in an argument.

That rate of murders you speak of is not home owners protecting themselves against home invasion .. MOST of the victims are killed by people they know. Women are far more likely to be killed by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or family member than by a stranger.
Click to expand...
Actually one CAN seriously suggest the purpose of the 2nd amendment was so the people could keep our own government in check. The founders were more concerned about that than foreign invaders. They understood the principle that it is easier to lose one's freedoms to one's own society than to outside invasion. Read the reasoning behind the arguments for the 2nd amendment, and similar provisions proposed and/or added to state constitutions of the time. The reasons did NOT have to do with defending against criminal invasion. To claim that defense against excessive government was NOT the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ignore the history of how our society came about.

The central purpose of the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry (ie: militia as defined in 1780) the right to arm themselves in the manner of an infantryman of a standing army (ie: well regulated by the definitions of 1780). Thus they did not expect people to buy 60 lb cannons, or the modern equivalent - though I doubt they would have blinked if the citizenry of the time who had the means wanted to buy cannons. They did expect the citizenry to have the freedom to keep and bear the type of rifles and handguns carried by an infantry soldier.

Of course, if violent revolt were necessary against a government gone totalitarian (kinda like the next step up from the government Bush is proposing where he has the right to send the military after U.S. citizens) infantry rifles and handguns are pretty much outmatched by tanks, bombs, etc. But then, look at the trouble we're having in Iraq - and they don't have much more in the way of manufactured weapons. They do have more than the U.S. citizen is allowed by a stupid and short sighted SCOTUS decision. But having even downgraded (ie: not full auto) infantry-type weapons in case of the need for violent revolt is a whole lot better than starting with nothing should the need arise.

It would be sheer ignorance to claim that need will never arise.
 
The real problem with our society is that it thinks that every problem can be solved by violence. Most crimes that are inflicted are in fact on people they know. Americans get a tad bit angry at someone and then decide that it's appropriate to kill them. I don't see any correlation at all between a societies rate of gun ownership and murder rates.
 
blackascoal said:
I could not agree with you more.



In other words, I believe in your first statement more than you do. Why should guns or anything else be off the table if a society that recognizes our children need to be protected, and that kids being shot in school needs to be SERIOUSLY addressed? How serious an "addressing" can that be? Don't get it twisted .. this is not an attack on you, it's an attack on the illogic of thinking that all things don't need to be on the table when it comes to not only protecting our children, but protecting our society.

I hope we can have this discussion without the placebo of proclaiming guns are a "right" at the expense of discussing what is best for society.



I agree with you here as well .. however, life and society are dynamic, not static .. and intelligent society evolves and adapts to changing dynamics, thus changing realities.

As you say, THAT society did not experience todays school violence, but THAT society also did not expose its children to 24/7 violence everyday of their lves. THIS society does.

Here's a illustration of how common they are in THIS society ...

April 2007: At least 32 people are killed in two shooting incidents in the campus of Virginia Tech university in Virginia.

October 2006: A 32-year-old gunman shoots dead at least five girls at an Amish school in Pennsylvania, before killing himself

September 2006: Gunman in Colorado shoots and fatally wounds a teenage schoolgirl, then kills himself; two days later a teenager kills the headteacher of a school in Cazenovia, Wisconsin

November 2005: Student in Tennessee shoots dead an assistant principal and wounds two other administrators

March 2005: Minnesota schoolboy kills nine, then shoots himself

May 2004: Four people injured in shooting at a school in Maryland

April 2003: Teenager shoots dead head-teacher at a Pennsylvania school, then kills himself

March 2001: Pupil opens fire at a school in California, killing two students

February 2000: Six-year-old girl shot dead by classmate in Michigan

November 1999: Thirteen-year-old girl shot dead by a classmate in New Mexico

May 1999: Student injures six pupils in shoot-out in Georgia

April 1999: Two teenagers shoot dead 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves at Columbine School in Colorado

June 1998: Two adults hurt in shooting by teenage student at high school in Virginia

May 1998: Fifteen-year-old boy shoots himself in the head after taking a girl hostage

May 1998: Fifteen-year-old shoots dead two students in school cafeteria in Oregon

April 1998: Fourteen-year-old shoots dead a teacher and wounds two students in Pennsylvania

March 1998: Two boys, 11 and 13, kill four girls and a teacher in Arkansas

December 1997: Fourteen-year-old boy kills three students in Kentucky

October 1997: Sixteen-year-old boy stabs mother, then shoots dead two students at school in Mississippi, injuring several others

Notice the ages of many of the shooters?

That doesn't include the many number of planned attacks that were stopped before they happened during the same time period.

Are you going to seriously suggest that access to guns played no part in these horrors? Is this about protecting American children or is this about the rights of past societies .. established at the same time one had a right to own a human?

Are the british coming? Not trying to be funny, but the society that established that "right" to own guns, supposedly of any magnitude, existed in a totally different reality that is not what America is today.

For clarity, if you can address this, I'll address your other questions.
Click to expand...
You point out the same point I made: today's society is far more violent than society 50 years ago. You list a whole bunch of violent acts.

What you have NOT done in any way, shape or form is connect that violence with legal gun ownership. You simply IMPLY that legal ownership played a part. But then you fail to demonstrate how gun control laws would have prevented those events. Unless you can prove gun control laws would have prevented the incidents, then legal ownership did NOT play the role you imply.

The reason for not putting guns on the table is gun control laws have been repeatedly shown to NOT be able to address the issue of gun violence. When gun violence first started escalating, the reaction was to put controls on gun ownership. But gun violence continued to rise, followed by ever stricter controls which did NOTHING to curb the continued increase in gun violence. Only when the penal system was adjusted to keep violent offenders incarcerated and/or under tighter control while paroled did rates of violence - including gun violence - start to decline.

WHY should we give up an enumerated constitutional right, even minimally, when there is no proven benefit? You want to prevent such incidents in the future, then we need to address WHY they are occurring.

And no, the British are not coming. But then, in 1787 the British were not coming either. The claim that the 2nd amendment was about repelling foreign invaders is incorrect.
 
Its amazing that the very morons that cry and whine about the Patriot Act will vote for Obama and not bat an eye.....

libs in action....

 
And some of us think that the Patriot Act and Barack Obama are both dangerous.
 
Solitary said:
And some of us think that the Patriot Act and Barack Obama are both dangerous.
Click to expand...

Then I can give you credit for being half right......
Keep those bedroom shades pulled tight sonny....wouldn't want "the agents" see you choking your chicken or whatever at night....

Actually, what the hell makes you worry about someone (the Government)caring what the hell you do....think you're important for some mysterious reason?
 
Why does it have to be that I am worried that I might get caught at something?

People who complain about the Patriot Act are not just the people who might be prosecuted under its unlawful tenets.

I am an american citizen. I am proud of the freedoms we enjoy. I do not think any false sense of security is worth losing one iota of that freedom.

Its about the US Constitution, sonny. You might have heard of it? Its just the basis for our nation's freedoms.

And before you call someone "sonny" you might find out if they are a young or old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top